Early in February 2022 a reviewer called ‘Star’ left the following message on the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Trust Pilot page.
Not long after the post was removed following a complaint from PHSO.
Unexpectedly, the review was restored to the Trust Pilot site, only to be removed once again. An organisation can only ‘flag’ for one breach at a time, so clearly Trust Pilot did not consider the first flag to be justified, so PHSO tried again and as in previous (4) cases were successful in removing the review. You can see the criteria here.
Star’s review appears to be based on genuine experience, certainly it rings true to any users of PHSO. It’s not advertising or promotional – no the very opposite in fact. It doesn’t contain personal information so it must have been removed on the basis that the comments were ‘harmful’ or ‘illegal’. There was certainly an element of ‘hate speech’ as Star first attacked the ‘unhinged’ complainants and then their ‘lazy’ caseworker colleagues. Defamation was the most likely reason for the censorship.
Defamation. We can remove content that is likely to cause serious harm to someone’s reputation or serious financial loss to a business.
This ‘insider’ information was most definitely likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the Ombudsman’s Office who like to control their media image in line with that stated on their website.
We have a transparent and fair process and will let you know about each stage of our process to make sure we have a consistent, quality service.
The process as described by ‘Star’ sounds anything but a consistent, quality service but it does gives a realistic overview to the final arbitration stage. Anyone who has managed to stay the course of the complaint system thus far is likely to come across as ‘unhinged’ as they have been ‘gaslit’ for months if not years by every person in authority they have encountered. Finally, arriving at the ‘independent’ and ‘impartial’ Ombudsman they will have a lot to report on, if they can find a real human being to converse with.
The caseworkers are indeed impossible to get hold of and their managers always seem to be away just when you want to talk to them about an inaccurate report which you received last thing on a Friday afternoon. Star has a point that the caseworkers should carry the can for delays, lost evidence and endless misinterpretations of the evidence but PHSO doesn’t work like that. You can only contact someone who is of absolutely no help to you as they do not have the information on your case to answer questions.
But Star saves the best till last with their ‘astonishment’ at the average age of the caseworkers who have to weigh up the evidence for complex and life threatening cases across a range of disciplines. Without a hint of irony, Star confirms that people who have experienced such trauma need ‘real people to talk to’ but sadly PHSO fail to provide any real people or anything like a real service as confirmed by the many (97%) negative reviews on Trust Pilot. What PHSO provides are intake workers who can’t wait to shut you up and caseworkers who can’t wait to shut you down.
This post has been brought to you in the interest of transparency by PHSOtheFACTS who welcome all PHSO whistleblowers with or without their first pxxxc hair.
phsothetruestory 
Rob Behrens view on ‘young, thrusting graduates’:
‘Q73. We moved to Manchester, which has been brilliantly successful, and brought in a whole tranche of people who would not otherwise have worked for the ombudsman—young, thrusting graduates from the north of England who give vitality and enthusiasm, and have a thirst for knowledge, which may not have existed before, so that is important.’
Rob Behrens view on staff who didn’t make the move to Manchester:
‘Q80 We had about 80 people who left the organisation because either they did not want to go to Manchester or their families were so tied up in London that they could not go. As a result of that, we lost a significant body of expertise in case handling, which is regrettable… ‘
https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/3189/pdf/
I see that caseworkers are now managed by ‘Operation Managers’:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/role_of_operation_manager_in_rel#comment-103059
LikeLike
I’m not so sure that older caseworkers should be associated with fairer outcomes. Young or old, they’ll be given a steer. Things were bleak before the big move to Manchester. See the comment dated 26/3/18 for a flavour of caseworker outcomes in previous years:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/top_10_investigators_in_201617#comment-82955
On the bullying culture:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/complaints_of_bullying_among_phs#comment-95944
LikeLike
wish I knew what chastening masterclasses are ! Perhaps that reflects the fact that it might sound good rather than making sense ! What I find even more interesting is that the PHSO employ people to do nothing other than monitor social media so as to try and shut down any negative press they might receive
LikeLike
‘Q35 … we have run chastening masterclasses with staff in Manchester, bringing
in the very best in the world of people commenting on empathy, communications and how to deal with complainants.’
https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/397/default/
I don’t think it’s working.
‘Lessons in listening: PHSO Rob Behrens doesn’t just want to be the ombudsman for bad news’
https://www.civilserviceworld.com/in-depth/article/lessons-in-listening-phso-rob-behrens-doesnt-just-want-to-be-the-ombudsman-for-bad-news-and-recalls-working-with-cyril-ramaphosa
But…
LikeLike
I think that there is a bullying culture from the top down which makes for a bullying culture to complaints.
LikeLike
If the facts are true then it’s not defamation but revelation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What I find most striking about this Trust Pilot review is there seems to be inbalance in resource allocation at PHSO. It is a clear indication that some staff are furiously paddling away whilst management swan serenely along.
The staff survey in October 2020 revealed that 17% of PHSO staff either reported they were bullied, harassed, suffered discrimination or preferred not to say. Interestingly, Mr Wragg and his PACAC committee chose not to address this in the oral scrutiny session last December despite it being submitted in written evidence. Obviously not important in Mr. Wragg’s eyes – he preferred reporting allegations of bullying and blackmail of Conservative MP’s to the Metropolitan Police.
For anyone who has been embroiled in the PHSO system, the Trust Pilot review has a ring of authenticity as being written by a PHSO insider. It is a shame that the culture of the organisation has led to the views expressed about complainants. PHSO is not fit for purpose – but then we already know that!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am certain it is genuine in the sense of being written by an intake caseworker who want to moan about complainants and and moan about getting paid less for doing more work than caseworkers. Given the reference to the ages of caseworkers I can only deduce that intake caseworkers are probably school leavers aged 16 to 18
LikeLike
Wow! now that does open a can of worms doesn’t it?
LikeLike
It rings true to me! If it isn’t written by someone who’s worked there, good on them for finding another way to highlight the disgrace of the phso
Hope all’s good with you J
LikeLiked by 1 person